↓ Skip to main content

Community health centers and primary care access and quality for chronically-ill patients – a case-comparison study of urban Guangdong Province, China

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Community health centers and primary care access and quality for chronically-ill patients – a case-comparison study of urban Guangdong Province, China
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0222-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leiyu Shi, De-Chih Lee, Hailun Liang, Luwen Zhang, Marty Makinen, Nathan Blanchet, Ruth Kidane, Magnus Lindelow, Hong Wang, Shaolong Wu

Abstract

Reform of the health care system in urban areas of China has prompted concerns about the utilization of Community Health Centers (CHC). This study examined which of the dominant primary care delivery models, i.e., the public CHC model, the 'gate-keeper' CHC model, or the hospital-owned CHC models, was most effective in enhancing access to and quality of care for patients with chronic illness. The case-comparison design was used to study nine health care organizations in Guangzhou, Dongguan, and Shenzhen cities within Guangdong province, China. 560 patients aged 50 or over with hypertension or diabetes who visited either CHCs or hospitals in these three cities were surveyed by using face-to-face interviews. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare quality and value of care indicators among subjects from the three cities. Multivariate analyses were used to assess the association between type of primary care delivery and quality as well as value of chronic care after controlling for patients' demographic and health status characteristics. Patients from all three cities chose their current health care providers primarily out of concern for quality of care (both provider expertise and adequate medical equipment), patient-centered care, and insurance plan requirement. Compared with patients from Guangzhou, those from Dongguan performed significantly better on most quality and value of care indicators. Most of these indicators remained significantly better even after controlling for patients' demographic and health status characteristics. The Shenzhen model (hospital-owned and -managed CHC) was generally effective in enhancing accessibility and continuity. However, coordination suffered due to seemingly duplicating primary care outpatients at the hospital setting. Significant associations between types of health care facilities and quality of care were also observed such that patients from CHCs were more likely to be satisfied with traveling time and follow-up care by their providers. The study suggested that the Dongguan model (based on insurance mandate and using family practice physicians as 'gate-keepers') seemed to work best in terms of improving access and quality for patients with chronic conditions. The study suggested adequately funded and well-organized primary care system can play a gatekeeping role and has the potential to provide a reasonable level of care to patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Master 9 6%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 49 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Social Sciences 15 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 56 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,297,343
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,853
of 1,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,173
of 389,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#46
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,906 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.